Sir, I have followed with interest the articles on The difficulties of making 'CPD verifiability' a legitimate measure of learning outcomes1 as well as Stephen Hancocks' editorial on How gullible are we?2 following my recent experience.

As lead clinician for facial pain, I attended a seminar on pain management (advertised extensively in the BDJ) as some of our patients have had splints provided by the company conducting the seminar and I thought it would be useful to find out more. The course was CPD approved and along with 68 other participants I paid my fee and received a certificate at the end which I can put into my portfolio of verified courses. We were issued with extensive promotional material as well as handouts which stated the aims and objectives of the seminar. I was astounded by the content and advertising that was contained within the seminar and I did not consider any of the stated aims and objectives to have been addressed in a scientific evidence-based way.

In dental schools it is compulsary that all teachers are peer-reviewed on their teaching on a regular basis. Is it not time that some of the courses that are offered are equally peer-reviewed by experts rather than just the participants? Martin Kelleher argues that we should be able to 'demonstrate that they (participants) understood more than for example, 60% (that is, better than an even chance) of the relevant points' from an educational experience. I would hope that participants at the course I attended did not understand such a high percentage for the content of this CPD activity as it would not 'produce safer or better treatment outcomes for patients'.

Could I suggest that in the future participants attend our facial pain section 63 course organised through the London Deanery which is patient centred and evidence based? Sadly it is only attended by a handful of dentists perhaps because we do not have high quality glossy advertisements in the BDJ.

1. by email